MEADE 

4HV 

5 40 J A REPLY 

:opy 1 


PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

ON THE 

WINE QUESTION, 

IN A 

LETTER TO GEN. J. S. SMITH, 

OF KINGSTON, ULSTER COUNTY, N. Y., 

- 

PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEMPERANCE SOCIETY. 


M.D., 

PASTOR OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CARLISLE, PA. 

• •• . . . . ’ 

“ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of 
men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” — St. Paul. 


BY THE 


REV. JAMES LILLIE, 


PHILADELPHIA: 

GR1GG, ELLIOT AND CO. 

14 NORTH FOURTH STREET. 

1848. 


*-//Y 

5j-o 


CONTENTS. 


Occasion of writing the letter, p. 3. — Prof. Stuart's frequent changes of opinion 
unfavorable to his influence on the subject of temperance, p. 4. — Prof. S.’s plan 
of discourse, p. 5. — Prof. S.’s temperance doctrine fundamentally Socinian, p. 6. 
— Chemistry and Medicine perverted by Prof. S., p. 6. — Drs. Nott and S. at issue 
with all Lexicons and Critics on the meaning of yayin and shekhar (wine and 
strong drink) — Gesenius — Fiirst, pp. 7, 8, 9. — Prof. S.’s criticism on the Law of 
the Nazarite, Num. vi. 3, p. 10. — A new thing, p. 10. — Prof. S. at issue with 
Luther and Melancthon, Calvin, the Septuagint, Martini, Scio, Saurin, Jahn, p. 
11. — Prof. S.’s reasons for this novelty sifted, pp. 12, 13, 14. — Prof. S.’s view of 
shekhar (strong drink), pp. 14, 15, 16 . — Tirosh (new wine), pp. 16, 17, 18. — 
Sove (wine), pp. 18, 19 . — Hhaimer (unmixed wine), pp. 19, 20 . — Ausis (wine), 
self-contradictions of Prof. S. on, p. 20. — Prof. S.’s pharmacy, p. 21. — Prof. S.’s 
mistaken compliment to Dr. Nott, p. 22. — Aristotle, Pliny, Columella, Mr. 
Brande, pp. 22, 23, 24. — “Ultimate view,” pp. 24, 25, 26. — New wine, Luke 
v. 37, 39, p. 26. — The miracle at Cana, pp. 27, 28. — The Corinthian Church, 
p. 28. — The Passover, Prof. S., Prof. Black of Edinburgh, p. 29. — Paul, Timothy, 
Titus, Peter, Christ, pp. 30, 31, 32. — Conclusion, Christian expediency the only 
ground of total abstinence , pp. 32, 33. — Prof. S.’s and Nott’s view incompatible 
with Christ’s doctrine, p. 34. — Conclusion, p. 35. 

* 

* * 

n ■> 

0^* 




$ a. rc * 

— 1957 


.copy 


PHILADELPHIA! 

T. K. AND P. G-. COLLINS, PRINTERS. 


A REPLY 


TO 

PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT ON THE 
WINE QUESTION. 


Carlisle, May 13th , 1848. 

Honored and Dear Sir, 

Your favor of the 12th March ult. welcomed my return from 
a journey of considerable length. You will no doubt be sur- 
prised at receiving a public letter, in return for a private one ; 
and I hasten to explain what must otherwise seem unaccount- 
able. 

Towards the close of last year, our town was visited by a 
reverend advocate of total abstinence, and of the institution of 
the “ Sons of Temperance, ” who deemed it his duty, without 
the slightest provocation on my part, to hold me up five times 
in one discourse, to public odium, as an enemy of what he 
called temperance. I felt myself called upon, not merely to 
defend my professional character thus rudely assailed, but, 
what was of much greater consequence, to vindicate the Bible, 
and the character of our divine Master, from the insidious influ- 
ence of a covert infidelity. 

As my antagonist depended entirely on President Nott for 
materials, in dropping the former as utterly incompetent, I 
promised to take up the lectures of the latter, and to publish 
a reply to anything of consequence which I had not already 
answered. I had referred, in the course of the discussion, to 
Professor Stuart of Andover, as an authority against Dr. N. 
Judge of my astonishment, when, in a few w 7 eeks, I found the 
professor had changed sides. It then became necessary to 


4 


A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 


turn my attention to an additional, if not a more formidable 
adversary. What follows is mainly in reply to him. 

The reputation of Professor Stuart is high, not merely in 
America, but in Britain. It cannot, however, be expected' 
that the views he has most lately expressed on the subject of 
wine as presented in the Scriptures, should produce an effect 
on the public, at all proportioned to his general character for 
skill in Hebrew. His changes of sentiment have been so fre- 
quent, so violent, and so sudden, that the confidence of the 
intelligent must be seriously shaken in regard to his fitness 
for acting as a guide to others. I do not mean to censure 
Professor S. severely for these frequent variations of view. In 
one respect he is entitled to the highest credit, for his frank- 
ness and candor in putting the public at once in possession 
of whatever light his latest researches may seem to have re- 
vealed. The prudence, however, is surely very questionable, 
of*continually inviting the multitude to follow us in some newly 
discovered path, which, in a little while, is always found lead- 
ing to a precipice. 

In 1830, Mr. S. published some views on this subject, 
which, in so far as they had any pretensions to novelty, have 
not stood the test of time. They taught, however, substan- 
tially the common doctrine, that wine and strong drink in 
Scripture, mean intoxicating liquors. Five years after, Mr. 
Duffield published his view of the meaning of yayin and 
tirosh; the former, as he thought, being always represented 
as a curse, the latter as a blessing. Mr. S. approved the dis- 
tinction, and, of course, abandoned the doctrine of his prize 
essay. When Dr. N.’s lectures were last year occasioning 
much difference of opinion, Mr. S., on the 8th of March, wrote 
to L. M. Sargent, stating, “ for the other substance, yayin , the 
position of Dr. N. is not tenable .” In a few weeks, however, 
we find him writing this long letter to Dr. N., in which the 
Dr.’s views are zealously maintained. This, then, is the third 
time that Mr. S. has changed his creed — and the second time 
within a few weeks. Who will insure his followers that, before 
next winter, they shall not be obliged to turn once more ? Sir, 
it is unfortunate that the influence which this indefatigable 
scholar has been accumulating through a long life, should be 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


5 


worse than thrown aw’ay, that the cause of benevolence, which 
■we have so much at heart, should be so trifled with, and above 
all, that the faith of the feeble of the flock of Christ should be 
exposed to such perilous shocks. 

Mr. S.’s plan of discourse is simple enough. He proposes 
first, “to give the results of a critical examination of every 
word employed in the Scriptures to designate wine and strong 
drink and then to deduce his inferences from the facts thus 
critically ascertained. Before, however, proceeding to his cri- 
tical survey, he tells us in five particulars, what he does not 
mean to do. These five points seem singularly out of place. 
The first and second are downright truisms, which must 
prove utterly barren of all results. How is the Professor’s in- 
quiry to be helped by formally taking for granted that intem- 
perance is a sin, and that whatever is injurious to either body 
or soul, must be unlawful? The third point, however, is more 
complicated and suspicious. The author “ takes it as esta- 
blished, that alcohol, whenever and wherever developed, is of 
a poisonous nature.” To take this for granted, is to beg the 
whole question. It enables the Professor, in the latter part of 
his letter, to dispose of the miracle at Cana, without any in- 
quiry into the meaning of the Greek ocvo$ (wine), by simply 
repudiating the horrid idea that Christ could make poison. 
But this is not criticism ; it is mere assumption. He adds, 
“ alcohol, often used, even in small quantities, eventually causes 
inflammation in the stomach,” and winds up by asserting, that 
“ chemical science and medical investigation, have established 
those facts beyond all reasonable question.” This is strangely 
beside the point. Prof. S. was not asked his opinions about 
chemistry and medicine, but about yayin and tirosh. Besides, 
why all this speculating about science, before going simply to 
the Scriptures, to learn what they actually say on the subject? 
Is it to forestall conclusions, to prejudge the cause, and to 
tempt the unwary reader to say to himself — this is the dictate 
of reason, it is impossible that Scripture can contradict it, for 
both reason and Scripture are from the same God! This mode 
of dealing with Scripture is the foundation of all Socinianism. 
It tells us, reason declares three can never be one, and there- 


6 


A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 


fore, if Scripture be reasonable, it cannot teach the doctrine of 
the Trinity. Prof. Bush’s volume on the Resurrection, was 
just an expansion of this process. Reason demonstrates that 
the resurrection is impossible, therefore it is impossible the 
Scriptures can teach it. So Prof. S.’s chemistry and medi- 
cine teach that alcohol is poison, therefore the “Scriptures 
mean ” — can “mean” (page 49) nothing else than that alco- 
holic drink must be abhorred. But, sir, if this is true criticism, 
I ask of what use is Scripture at all ? If reason and science 
can thus anticipate the Scriptures on points of duty, the Bible 
may be laid aside as a great superfluity. The more direct 
and reasonable course for Prof. S., instead of perplexing tire 
young q^en at Andover with Hebrew, and Greek, and Ger- 
man j, would be to teach them science at once, and tej^them 
this is God’s light, you need not trouble yourselves with the 
Bible, for it must harmonize. 

The simple truth is, chemistry and medicine declare nothing 
so unmeaning or unfounded. I have pursued these studies 
both in Edinburgh and New York, and at the university of 
neither did I ever learn that “ alcohol, often used, even in small 
quantities, eventually causes inflammation of the stomach.” 
Neither Hope nor Monroe ; neither Draper nor Payne ever 
taught his pupils any such proposition. Indeed, to maintain 
such a thing, is in fact to assert that fifty years ago, the vast 
majority of deaths must have been caused by inflammation of 
the stomach, and that all the daily cider drinkers, beer drinkers, 
wine drinkers, &c., now on earth, must eventually die of the 
same awful disease. 

Moreover, how is it possible to reconcile this assertion with 
Dr. Nott’s peculiar notion, that alcohol is always more or less 
present in all grape juice, and that a small, a very small quan- 
tity, improves rather than injures the beverage. This Prof. 
S. zealously endorses. Did not the jurist who drank the 
Spanish wine in such quantities, and whose life was saved by 
it, (see p. 44,) “use alcohol often in small quantities?” How, 
then, did he escape inflammation of the stomach? 

But let us now attend to Prof. S. ’s present views of the ori- 
ginal Scriptures, on the subject of intoxicating drinks. He 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


7 


maintains with Dr. Nott, that the words for wine and strong 
drink ( yayin and shelchar ), are generic; that is to say, they 
mean either intoxicating or unintoxicating drinks, and that the 
context must always determine whether a specific or a generic 
meaning is to be understood. (See pp. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.) 
Now it is one of the most remarkable things in this remarkable 
epistle, that while Prof. S. occupies those five pages with 
merely defining and asserting what I have stated in one short 
sentence, the proof collapses into the first half of the 16th 
page. 

Before coming to the proof, however, let us examine for a 
moment those five pages of definitions. Nearly one of them is 
occupied w r ith the different meanings of exousia. I respectfully 
suggest it would have been more to the purpose to have quoted 
from some standard lexicon, definitions of yayin and shekhar. 
Prof. S. is very familiar with Gesenius; why did he not quote 
him ? I will now do what I think he ought to have done. 
Gesenius defines yayin (I quote Dr. Robinson’s translation), 
wine , so called from fermenting, effervescing ; see root yon. 
He gives oivo$ in Greek, and vinum in Latin, as the corre- 
sponding words, plainly implying, in his judgment, that both 
these w r ords, like their root yayin , signify a fermented liquor. 
He quotes Gen. xiv. 18, and xix. 32. The former refers to 
Melchisedeck’s wine, the latter to Lot’s. According to Gese- 
nius, the wine of Melchisedeck was identical in nature with 
that of Lot. There can be no question as to the intoxicating 
quality of the latter, and if Gesenius maybe trusted, there can 
be just as little about the nature of Melchisedeck’s. By what 
authority, then, does Prof. S. put Lot’s wine in the bad, and 
Melchisedeck’s in the good list? Like Dr. Nott, he seems to 
think that the principal thing in critical inquiry is to put down 
a mere assertion at the head of a string of Scripture references, 
trusting that the assertion can never be questioned which seems 
to rest on so many texts. No doubt there are too many 
readers, especially those who already agree in sentiment with 
our authors, that will acquiesce in such a handling of the word 
of God. But it is palpably, to say the least, gratuitous and 
nugatory. Mr. S. would, no doubt, allege that he does assign 


8 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

reasons physiological, chemical and medical, why Melchi- 
sedeck’s wine must have been different in nature from Lot’s. 
I reply physiology is one thing and philology a totally different 
one. The atoms of chemistry have no affinity with Hebrew 
points. As the Socinian, by giving what he calls reason, a 
controlling power ’over faith, produces a spurious theology ; so 
the Professor, by allowing his physiology unlawful freedoms 
with his philology, gives birth to an illegitimate exegesis. 

Gesenius next quotes Ex. xxix. 40, and Lev. x. 9. It is re- 
markable that Prof. S. separates these texts as well as the two 
last. He allows that the one in Lev. means intoxicating wine, 
but maintains that Ex. xxix. 40 (or, which is the same thing, 
Lev. xxiii. 13), must refer to unfermented liquor. How did 
Gesenius never dream of such arbitrary processes with the very 
same word? Surely Prof. S. will not say that the man to whom 
he is so largely indebted as his great master in Hebrew and 
Arabic, knew nothing about philology. How is it that the 
pupil is thus lifting up the heel against the teacher? It must 
be the dire necessities of his unfortunate position alone, that 
le^d to such painful results. 

It was only last year that Mr. S. pronounced a lofty eulo- 
gium on Gesenius as a critic and commentator, on the occasion 
of publishing Gesenius’s Hebrew Grammar, in preference to 
his own. I by no means share in Mr. S.’s admiration of 
Gesenius as a commentator; but as a definer of single words, 
it is, I believe, allowed that he has no superior. How is it, 
then, that Mr. S. will not allow his great luminary intelligence 
enough to understand the meaning of yayin 1 ) 

Gesenius gives as a secondary meaning, drunkenness, intox- 
ication by metonymy of cause for effect. Now, beyond all 
cavil, if drunkenness was the effect, the cause must have been 
intoxication. 

But while Mr. S. never once refers to Gesenius for the mean- 
ing of yayin , he appeals to the admirable Fiirst, the author of 
the splendid Concordance. I have consulted Fiirst, and I am 
sorry to be obliged to inform you, sir, that he is not fairly 
quoted. The reader of the letter gets the impression that Fiirst 
patronizes the Professor’s notion ; whereas there is not one word 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


9 


in the whole article that bears out the distinction as to the two 
kinds of wine. Fiirst, like Gesenius, classes those passages 
together as referring to the same liquor, which Mr. S. separates 
as expressive of intoxicating and unintoxicating drinks. True, 
Fiirst traces yayin to a different root from Gesenius, but this 
is a very secondary matter. Does he not, like Gesenius, give 
on'oj and vinum as the correlatives in Greek and Latin? He 
does not say, however, with Prof. S., that vinum means grape 
liquor , but by adding to his very brief definition (for the word 
was too plain to need a long one), the phrase sove yayin , 
oivoTtotqs ( oinopotes , winebibber), he undeniably determines 
what he understood by yayin. Mr. S. will hardly venture to 
endorse the ignorance of B. Parsons, author of Anti-Bacchus, 
who maintains that oinopotes means simply wine-drinker. 
At all events, there can be no doubt what Fiirst understands 
by sove yayin, — oinopotes. Prov. xxiii. 20, 21 settles it: “Be 
not among winebibbers [sove yayin) ; among riotous eaters of 
flesh; for the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty.” 
Fiirst then, as well as Gesenius, is clearly against Drs. Nott 
and Stuart, on the meaning of yayin. 

The Professor devotes two pages to the definition of shekhar, 
and, after referring to the English translators and Fiirst, comes 
to the conclusion that this word, like yayin , may mean either 
an intoxicating or an unintoxicating drink. But why make 
words about Fiirst, without ever quoting Fiirst’s definition? 
Had this been in Mr. S.’s favor, would he not have triumphed 
in it ? — and is it unfair to suspect that his silence is owing to the 
fact that Fiirst is against him? Fiirst explains shekhar thus: 
“ A noun masculine. According to David Kimchi, it was 
drink made out of fruits, or boiled wine, and intoxicates (Ger. 
Berauschendes Getrank ).” Gesenius is equally clear: “ Shek- 
har (root shakhar I.) Temetum , strong drink , any intoxicating 
liquor, whether wine (Num. xxviii. 7), or an intoxicating drink 
resembling wine, prepared or distilled from barley (Herod, ii. 
27 ; Diod. i. 20, 34), from honey or dates.” Gesenius does not 
leave Mr. S. even the small matter of the root to glory in. 
The English translators were right, after all — if Gesenius’s 
2 


10 


A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 


authority, supported by several texts, may outweigh Mr. S.’s 
mere assertion. 

Thus much for definitions. We now come to the most im- 
portant part of the subject, viz., the reasoning of Mr. S. in 
behalf of Dr. Nott’s and Mr. Grindrod’s and Mr. Parsons’ 
distinction between the two kinds of wine. “ That my posi- 
tion,” says the Professor, “is correct in regard to the generic 
nature of both the words in question, and that both may mean 
a liquor, either intoxicating or unintoxicating, is shown deci- 
sively by Num. vi. 3. There the Nazarite is forbidden, first 
to drink either yayin , or shay-cawr. This is generic in respect 
to both. But then, in order to enforce the precept more tho- 
roughly, the legislator goes on to particularize. He forbids 
the Nazarite to drink the Hhometz yayin , or the Hhometz 
shay-cawr , i. e ., the fermented wine or the fermented shay-cawr. 
Manifestly the idea conveyed by our translation here is wrong. 
The vinegar of wine and the vinegar of strong drink (as our 
version has it), were no more employed as drinks by the He- 
brews, than vinegar of cider or wine is used for drink by us. 
In Hebrew Haw-maits means anything fermented , and is a 
participial form of the same root, as that from which the noun 
Hornets above comes. Strictly speaking, the latter word 
means acidification , acidulation. Now all wine in fermenting 
parts with more or less of its sweetness , and becomes acid. 
Plainly, then, the expressions above mean fermented (acidu- 
lated) wine, and fermented (acidulated) shay-cawr.” 

Prof. S. informs us (p. 7) that he has “obtained some light 
which is new” to himself. The paragraph I have just quoted, 
must, I should imagine, be the chief instance of the new light. 
Certainly it is new to me, and, I presume, sir, to you also. The 
more important point to be determined, is, whether the light be 
as true as it is new. Indeed, my friend, I have great mis- 
givings about all pretensions to novelty on this subject. Mr. 
S., it is true, seems to think (p. 5), unless a man have some- 
thing new to offer, he had better be silent. While I disclaim 
all pretensions to discoveries, I would respectfully plead that 
even I may claim a hearing, if I merely add my mite to pre- 
vent the public from being misled by dangerous error, under 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


11 


the garb of novelty. “ Manifestly the idea conveyed by our 
translation here is wrong.” Sir, if the English translation is 
here manifestly wrong, then Luther and Melancthon were mani- 
festly wrong for they render the passage, “ Weinessig oder 
starken getrankes essig,” wine vinegar or vinegar of strong 
drink. John Calvin was manifestly wrong, for he renders it 
“ acetum vini et acetum sicerae,” vinegar of wine and vinegar 
of strong drink. The seventy w T ere manifestly wrong, for they 
render it “ oxos ex oinou kai oxos ek sikeraf vinegar of w T ine 
and vinegar of strong drink. Martini, Archbishop of Florence, 
was manifestly wrong, for he renders it “ Aceto fatto di vino, 
o di qualunque albfia bevanda,” vinegar made of wine, or of 
any other beverage. Scio, the Spanish translator, was also 
manifestly wrong, for he renders it “Vinagre hecho de vino, 
a de alguna otra bebida,” vinegar made of wine or of any 
other drink. The learned Saurin was manifestly mistaken, 
for he tells us, (Dis. His., vol. iv. p. 7,) “La 3 liqueur, interdite 
au Nazareen, c’etoit de toute sorte de vinaigre, faite avec de 
vin, ou de la cervoise,” i. e., the third liquor forbidden to the 
Nazarite, was every kind of vinegar made of wine or beer. 

The learned Dr. John Jahn was manifestly wrong. I quote 
from LTpham’s Abridgment, made under Prof. S.’s own eye. 
Jahn tells us, (p. 498,) “ The Nazarite vowed to abstain not 
only from wine and all inebriating drink, but from vinegar like- 
wise.” In short, sir, all ages, nations and tongues are mani- 
festly wrong here, if Prof. S. is right. Nay, it is fair to be- 
lieve that this learned Professor has been manifestly wrong 
all his days, and only found out his error, and the error of all 
the world, a few months ago. I cannot believe this. 

But let us hear the Professor’s reasons for his change of opin- 
ion. “ The vinegar of wine, and the vinegar of strong drink, 
(as our version has it,) were no more employed as drink by 
the Hebrews, than vinegar of cider or wine is used for drink 
by us.” This is truly something new. Vinegar never used 
as a drink either by ancients or moderns ! Why, sir, Grindrod 
and Parsons, shallow and absurd, and perverting as they are, 
never thought of denying this. The former (Bac., p. 399) 
speaks of “vinegar of wine as a common drink of the coun- 


12 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

try.” The latter, in his exposition of the law of the Nazarite, 
plainly takes it for granted that vinegar might be drunk. The 
learned Jahn, in the passage quoted above, implies that vine- 
gar was drunk. And, with regard to modern habits, I shall 
only add, that I know diluted vinegar has been used by more 
than one, in your own county of Ulster, as a summer beverage. 

Besides, who has not heard of the reapers of Boaz who em- 
ployed vinegar to impart a relish to their food in the harvest 
field? (Ruth ii.) 

“ Strictly speaking, the latter word ( Hhometz ) signifies acidi- 
fication .” One would suppose, then, that when applied to 
wine, the meaning of the two must be wine of acidification, or 
acidified wine, or acid wine or vinegar. But, no, the Profes- 
sor will have it, that fermented wine, i. e. in good English, wine, 
is the meaning. But here he is in conflict not merely with the 
whole world, living and dead, as we have just seen ; — he sets at 
naught every passage where the word is used in the Hebrew 
Scriptures. Ps. lxix. 21, “In my thirst they gave me vine- 
gar ( Hhometz ) to drink.” Will it be denied that this is cor- 
rectly translated? Surely, the crucifiers of our Lord did not 
give him wine, for it is to him the language refers. Prov. x. 
26, “As vinegar ( Hhometz ) to the teeth, so is the sluggard 
to him that sendeth him.” Would Mr. S. say that wine would 
give better sense, or, indeed, any sense at all ? Prov. xxv. 20, 
“ As vinegar (Hhometz) upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs 
to a heavy heart.” To put wine on the nitre would be poor 
chemistry. But with the passages already quoted, these are 
all the places where the word occurs. Now, it is an outrage 
on all interpretation arbitrarily to give a word a meaning 
which it never bears elsewhere, even though that meaning 
could not be shown, as in the present case, to be against all 
the other reasons that we have already adduced. 

“Now, all wine in fermenting parts with more or less of its 
sweetness, and becomes acid.” W T hat does Mr. S. mean by 
wine in this passage ? Fermented grape juice, or wnfermented? 
On either supposition, the statement will be found inconsistent. 
Grape juice is liable to three successive fermentations, the 
first, called vinous, because it produces wine; the second, 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


13 


acetous, because it produces vinegar; and the third, putrefac- 
tive. It is only with the two former that we have at present 
to do. Now, if Mr. S., in the above extract, means by wine 
what the English language means, viz., grape juice that has 
undergone the first fermentation, then, no doubt, if allowed to 
ferment a second time, it will become acid, for it will become 
vinegar. But Mr. S. expressly rejects our translation for em- 
ploying vinegar in rendering Hhometz. But if he means by 
wine, wnfermented grape juice, then it is unmeaning to speak 
of it becoming more acid by fermenting, not only because it 
would imply that the sweet unfermented juice might be called 
acid, but also because, by the first fermentation, the must be- 
comes alcoholic, not acid. Alcohol cannot be identified with 
acid of any kind. Whatever construction, then, Mr. S. would 
wish to be put on the word wine , in this passage, he plainly 
contradicts himself. 

It may be alleged, however, that Mr. S. expressly declares 
the wine, in Num. vi. 3, to be generic , that is, either fermented 
or unfermented. “ There,” says he, “the Nazarite is forbid- 
den first to drink either yayin or shay-cawr ,” (wine or strong 
drink;) “this is generic in respect to both;” that is to say, the 
wine or strong drink may be either fermented or unfermented. 
Let us see, then, how the verse will read on such a supposi- 
tion: “He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, 
unfermented and fermented, and he shall drink no fermented 
wine or fermented strong drink.” Now, sir, is this sense? 
Mr. S. insists that fermented wine is bad, and unfermented, 
good. Try again, with this variation, “He shall separate him- 
self from wine and strong drink, good and bad, and he shall 
drink no bad wine and no bad strong drink.” Sir, this is new, 
no doubt; but, surely, that is all that can be alleged in its 
favor. 

What should we think of an expositor who should expound 
the “ spirit (Ep. ii. 2) that now worketh in the children of dis- 
obedience,” by telling us this spirit is generic; it means either 
Satan or some good spirit? We should assure him his view 
w T as self-contradictory; that if it was Satan, it could not be a 
good spirit, and if it was a good spirit, it could not be Satan. 


14 


A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 


And what better is it to tell us that the wine, in Num. vi. 3, is 
generic, either fermented or unfermented, a blessing or a curse? 
If it is in itself a blessing, it is impossible it can be a curse; 
if it is in itself a curse, it is absurd to regard it as a blessing. 

We found above, all the ancients and moderns, Protestants 
and Romanists, against Prof. S. in his translation of Hhometz 
yayin , and we shall, in conclusion, hear what the lexicogra- 
phers have to say about the matter. Ml*. Stuart’s old master, 
Gesenius, (I use the translation of Dr. Robinson, Mr. Stuart’s 
own distinguished pupil,) defines Hhometz , “ vinegar ,” and 
cites, as authorities, Num. vi. 3, Ruth ii. 14. He would, 
undoubtedly, then, have been opposed to Mr. S. in his views 
on this passage. Fiirst is equally decisive, declaring it means 
essig (vinegar). He quotes a curious passage from the Gemara, 
tvhich may be thus translated: as vinegar (acetum) is the son 
of wine, so may the wicked be the son of the righteous. He 
then quotes this very Num. vi. 3. We need not wonder that 
our author, in his remarks on this passage, quotes not one au- 
thority, ancient or modern. 

I have been thus minute in my examination of this passage, 
because it is the only attempt in the whole letter to sustain 
the view of the two kinds of wine on philological grounds. I 
leave you, honored sir, and every intelligent reader, to judge 
between Prof. S. and all the critics and versions which I have 
brought before you. 

After these attempts at definition, the Professor endeavors 
to illustrate his views by a reference to the use of the different 
words in the Scriptures. He begins with Shekhar. He first 
quotes passages to show that strong drink is sometimes spoken 
of as producing drunkenness, and then devotes a page to show 
that it is sometimes mentioned as a comfort, an offering and a 
medicine, winding up with one or two instances which he 
thinks doubtful. He then asks, “ To what conclusions does 
this scriptural development lead us?” and answers, “Several 
things are plain. There was a species of shay-cawr that was 
not fermented,” &c. But how is it plain? Mr. S. has merely 
told us that strong drink sometimes made men drunk, and 
sometimes made them comfortable. Why is it plain that one 


ON THE WINE- QUESTION. 


15 


liquor might not produce these different results, provided it 
was abused in the first case, and used moderately in the 
second? If it is so plain, how did Gesenius not see it? Why 
is Fiirst ignorant of it? How did Jerome, hundreds of years 
ago, though living in the land of Palestine, and far more fami- 
liar with its products and sacred language than Mr. S. can pre- 
tend to be, — how, I ask, did he miss so plain a point? Nay, 
how, if it is so plain, has Mr. S. been reading Hebrew for 
more than forty years without ever perceiving it, till, in a few 
weeks, he finds it out, at the suggestion and solicitation of Dr. 
Nott? That, surely, cannot be so very plain which Mr. S. has 
been more than half a century in finding out, and which, so far 
as is known, all the great critics that ever lived, died without 
ever finding at all. 

But, plain as the Professor would have it, he is not satisfied. 
He labors to make it plainer still, as if he had a misgiving that, 
after all, the reader might not think it plain. He asks, whe- 
ther the drink offerings were fermented liquor, and answers, by 
assuring us that the great mass of the Jews have ever under- 
stood the prohibition of leaven, as extending to fermented wine. 
Sir, I am surprised how a man of Professor Stuart’s undoubted 
talents and information should venture on such an assertion. 
Mr. S. ought to know that the chief Rabbi of Hebron treated 
Mr. Smith with fermented drink during the feast of unleavened 
bread. Mr. Schaufler, the missionary to the Jews, at Con- 
stantinople, whom Mr. S. addressed, when he was sent out, 
testifies, in the clearest manner to the fact that fermented wine 
is the orthodox element at the passover. That the Jews often 
scruple, or even refuse, to employ Gentile wine, at this feast, 
is not because it has been fermented, for without fermentation, 
they, at least, know it would be no wine at all, but because 
they know well that we do not share their scruples about 
leavened bread, and tremble to think that some stray crumb 
may have mingled in the process of wine-making. They are 
also aware that in wine countries, which are nearly all under 
the sway of Rome, priests are employed to sprinkle the vine- 
yards with their holy water, — a ceremony which the Jew ab- 
hors as savoring of idolatry, and tainting all it touches. But 


16 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

that they must have a fermented liquor for the passover, is 
manifest even from Mr. Noah’s letter to Mr. Delevan. Why 
else is the demijohn set near the fire for a week or more with 
a piece of linen over the mouth, if not to secure that moderate 
temperature, that measured supply of air, and the time neces- 
sary for insuring fermentation. If mere raisin juice were 
deemed sufficient, why not express the liquor after a few hours’ 
maceration of the divided fruit? However plain this is, I have, 
for the satisfaction of others, asked a Christian Jew his former 
practice. He told me his father had been a rabbi, that he him- 
self had attained the same dignity, and that they made the 
liquor, when necessary, in this way, because it was indispensa- 
ble that fermentation should have taken place. 

A most extraordinary fact connected with this subject, I am 
constrained, sir, by a regard to truth, to bring here before the 
public. My esteemed friend, Mr. Herschel, of London, in his 
sketch of the Jews, remarks that Hornets signifies the fermen- 
tation of corn in any shape, and applies to beer, and to all 
spirituous liquors distilled from corn. Now mark, the Rev. B. 
Parsons, the author of Anti-Bacchus, (p. 281 ,) quoting Mr. H., 
drops the conclusion, “ spirituous liquors distilled from corn,” 
and substitutes u fermented liquors ,” thus including wine, which 
Mr. H. expressly excluded. This astounding change was 
detected by the Princeton Reviewer. It is curious that Dr. 
Nott quotes Mr. Herschel’s perverted testimony, as if it were 
genuine, years after the falsification had been exposed, and 
that the delusion about the opinions of the Jews, which that 
falsification was suited to propagate and maintain, should now 
be the undoubting persuasion of Mr. S. himself. 

Prof. S. next devotes four pages to the use of yayin in the 
Scriptures, but defers drawing any conclusion from the enu- 
meration, till after he has examined the other words employed 
to designate wine in the sacred record. The first of these is 
tirosh. Gesenius traces it to yarash , to seize, because as an 
inebriating drink, it seizes the brain. Mr. S. is not pleased 
with Gesenius’s reason, and prefers Fiirst’s. But the precise 
idea connecting the word with the root, is a secondary matter. 
The main inquiry is, does tirosh express an intoxicating drink ? 


ON THE WINE -QUESTION. 


17 


Now on this, the only point worth arguing about, Fiirst is as 
explicit as Gesenius. Why did not Mr. S. allow his readers 
to know as much ? It was not fair to leave the English reader 
to fancy that Gesenius’ authority was balanced by that of 
Fiirst, and that Mr. S.’s might be allowed to turn the scale, 
when the real truth is, that both the German authorities are 
against him. Fiirst defines tirosh a kind of drink that intoxi- 
cates. True, he adds must. Mr. S. may have difficulty in 
understanding how must can intoxicate. But the truth is, the 
main fermentation of the grape juice took place in the vats, 
before it was transferred to the cask, and consequently, such 
new wine would certainly intoxicate. The text which gives 
Mr. S. most trouble on this term, isHosea iv. 11, “ Whoredom 
and wine, and ( tirosh ) new wine, take away the heart.” Here 
Mr. S.’s, as well as Mr. Duffield’s favorite, seems in bad com- 
pany. How does the professor’s exegesis manage the diffi- 
culty? “ The fact is,” says he, “ that the tee-roash, when 
well preserved, became a very delicious sweet liquor, an 
article of great luxury; and such a one, we may well suppose, 
might naturally be employed in the revels here spoken of, in 
order to give zest to the intoxicating wine ; in like manner as 
revellers of the present day would employ sugar or syrups on 
such occasions.” This reply is not satisfactory. The tirosh , 
in the case supposed, did not draw away the heart from God. 
So far as it was drunk, it displaced just so much intoxicating 
liquor, (for, after all, the stomach of the most determined reveller 
has its limits,) and consequently, to the same extent, prevented 
the heart from being drawn away, or, what is the same thing, 
kept drunkenness in abeyance. So that, instead of drawing 
with the wine, it is plain the tirosh drew the other way. 

In this connection, I will venture a remark on Mr. S.’s habit 
of expressing himself with great hesitancy. True, he some- 
times lays it aside in a very remarkable way. Still the pre- 
vailing tone of his criticism is trembling and hesitating. I do 
not wonder at this, when I perceive all the great masters in cri- 
ticism opposed to Mr. S. He sees a hand the common reader 
cannot see ; he hears a voice the other cannot hear. After set- 
ting aside Gesenius’ and Fiirst’s definition of tirosh as an in- 
3 


18 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

toxicating drink, he comes (p. 29) to ask, “would a liquor 
rapidly fermented, be called tiroshV ’ His answer is, “ I doubt 
it.” Now, sir, this is very distressing to those who are anx- 
ious to believe firmly what Mr. S. propounds. I assure you 
no multitude of plain men were ever carried far with mere 
doubts . 

Sove. Prof. S. winds up his account of this word, by saying 
that little can be made of it in the way of argument on the 
temperance question. I altogether differ with this opinion, but 
I leave you to judge. He traces the word to a root, signifying 
to guzzle down, and adds, “ The cases that occur leave us 
unable to decide whether it includes any and all liquors that 
intoxicate, and are greedily and excessively drunk, or whether 
it w r as applied merely to intoxicating wine” Now whatever 
doubt hangs about this statement, as to whether sove was wine 
or something else, it plainly implies that some intoxicating 
liquor is certainly expressed by it; and no wonder, when the 
word, in a slightly different form, means drunkards. And yet, 
in a few lines, Mr. S. begins to doubt whether sove was intoxi- 
cating after all. He says, “The liquor here in question, 
which in its original state was lively and sparkling, and, per- 
haps, alcoholic, (for this is not entirely certain,) has its strength 
cut down.” Now this is a very curious sentence, independently 
of its connection with the preceding admission. For how 
should sove , as a drink, have any strength to be cut down, if it 
were not alcoholic? Is not its strength just another name for 
its alcohol? And how should it sparkle wuthout fermentation, 
unless the author fancies it was some species of Congress 
water? 

I should have been pleased if Mr. S., instead of merely 
quoting a part of the 22d verse of Is. i., had given us, not 
merely the whole, but the connection in which it stands. The 
21st and 22d verses are these, “ How is the faithful city be- 
come an harlot! It was full of judgment, righteousness lodged 
in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy 
wine mixed with water.” M. Henry, almost translating Cal- 
vin, expounds thus: “Justice was perverted by their princes; 
and religion and the Word of God were sophisticated by their 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


19 


priests, and made to serve what turn they pleased. Dross may 
shine like silver, and the wine that is mixed with water may 
retain the color of wine, but neither is worth anything.” 
This, sir, I hold to be sound exposition, and if so, then it im- 
plies that the liquor, whatever it was, which Mr. S. allows to 
have been intoxicating, (for I cannot permit this first to be 
granted and then doubted,) must, in the estimate of the Holy 
Spirit, have been an emblem of righteousness, and hence could 
not in itself have been a bad thing. I leave you, sir, and the 
intelligent reader to judge. 

Hhaimer. Mr. S.’s treatment of this word astonishes me 
almost as much as anything in the pamphlet. He allows it 
comes from a root signifying to ferment , but denies that it 
means, on that account, a fermented drink. He will have it, 
that it merely means a fermentodde one. This implies that 
Hhaimer , though able to ferment, if left to itself, was yet always 
prevented from fermenting. In that case, I think its name 
should rather have come from the word that signifies to keep 
quiet, than from fermenting. For why it should be called by 
an act that it never performs, is odd enough. Lucus a non 
lucendo , never surpassed this. I know the professor gives us 
something about passives, and participials, to bear out his 
singular assertion. Such small criticism is out of place in a 
popular treatise, which the author undertook to write. (See p. 4.) 
I sweep away such cobwebs, by the simple question — did not 
Gesenius understand as well about passives and participials 
as Mr. S.? Yet he renders the word, “wine, so called from 
being fermented.” And his favorite Fiirst is very full. He 
defines hhaimer — “the same as wine ; is called hhaimer because 
it makes wild (gahrendes getrank) fermenting drink. It is 
from the root hhamar , which signifies first, to make to ferment.” 
And he adds the Latin vinum merum (unmixed wine), a fer- 
mentando atque efFervescendo, (from fermenting and efferves- 
cing.) From these two authorities, I think we may infer, not 
only that Gesenius regarded the Latin vinum as being like 
hhaimer, a fermented drink and nothing else, but that Dr. 
Robinson regards wine as the strict equivalent in English; 


20 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

and Fiirst, so far as the Latin, the Hebrew, and German are 
concerned, holds the same. 

Mr. S. quotes Deu. 32, 14, “ the blood of the grape, fer- 
mentable liquor (, hhaimer ), didst thou drink.” After what we 
have just considered, we are now able to judge of this transla- 
tion. Mr. S. is very decided here. He says, “ At all events, an 
unfermented, though a fermentable, liquor is here designated.” 
It is unnecessary to say that the professor is thus confident, in 
defiance of the authorities quoted above, who bring forward 
this passage as proving their view. I might add old Buxtorf, 
and indeed an indefinite host of critics. As I write for the 
people, however, I will make a remark on the passage, which 
every one can understand. If Mr. S. will have it that the 
hhaimer must have been unfermented, because it is called the 
blood of the grape, and that the Israelite must have used it in 
this form, why does he not also hold that the fat of the kid- 
neys of wheat was devoured by God’s people without being 
ground into flour, or at all events, without being fermented 
into bread? 

Ausis. I notice this word merely to call attention to the 
evidence it affords of the extreme haste with which this letter 
has been composed. Mr. S. (p. 15) insists that yayin and 
tirosh are the only terms in Hebrew that are generic , that is, 
that signify either fermented or unfermented drinks. ‘‘The 
two words,” says he, “ which I have endeavored to define, 
are the only two which are generic .” “We shall see in the 
sequel, that all other names used for liquors of the nature just 
described, are specific .” And yet when the sequel comes, (p. 
33,) we see no such thing, but the very opposite. “This 
name” (meaning ausis), “would seem to be kindred, as to its 
generic nature, to yayin. Consequently, it might designate a 
liquor obtained by treading, which was either unfermented or 
fermented; this is, in fact, the case.” The professor is very 
careful of his italics, but, after all, he is only most emphati- 
cally self-contradictory. Besides, there is not one particle of 
evidence that ausis ever meant an unintoxicating drink. Gese- 
nius defines it, “new wine, the product of the same year, like 
new wheat,” and classes all the passages together, as referring 


ON TIIE WINE-QUESTION. 


21 


to the same thing, while Mr. S. would distinguish them into 
two divisions. If, as he allows, the word means intoxicating 
liquor in Isaiah, that passage is the key to all the rest. 

Passing over what the author states about the mixed wines, 
which has a slight importance in comparison with what we have 
already considered, we come to his conclusions from what he 
has brought forward. As formerly, however, he does not go 
straight to his object, but repeats his former truisms and 
opinions, chemical, physiological, and medical. Why can- 
not the professor allow the divine witness to tell his own story, 
without first tutoring him in his physiological school ? Not- 
withstanding the readiness of Mr. S. to indulge in such specu- 
lations, he is evidently very slenderly informed about them. 
I infer this from the fact that he confounds pharmacy with 
physiology, (p. 40.) He asks, “Is it (alcohol) not produced in 
the human stomach from all saccharine nutrition? Perhaps 
this question has not been fully decided ; but so far as the prin- 
ciples of pharmacy are concerned, I can see no good reason to 
disbelieve this.” Now, sir, here the professor is very pal- 
pably out of his depth. Pharmacy is the art of compounding 
drugs, and has nothing to do with the function of digestion, 
and its products in the human stomach. This Ifelongs exclu- 
sively to physiology — the noble science of life. The mortar 
of the apothecary is a dead thing; the stomach of a man is a 
living one. The potter can make the one ; it is God alone who 
can make the other. 

While Mr. S. is so decided in condemning alcohol as poison, 
he yet, along w T ith Dr. Nott, pleads for one drop. “ To assume 
the position,” says he, (p. 39,) “that a single drop of alcohol is 
mischievous, is assuming an extravagant position,” &c. Sir, 
is not this a sad pass that the cause of total abstinence has 
been brought to, that its most prominent friends should now be 
engaged in keen controversy about a drop of alcohol? All the 
combined influence of Union College and Andover, pulling in 
one direction, and all the management and tact of Mr. J. Marsh 
and his numerous friends, drawing in the opposite ! Can a 
house thus divided against itself, stand? 

Mr. S. compliments (p. 44) Dr. N. in a very animated 


22 


A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 


style, for showing that the ancients were in the habit of pre- 
serving grape juice in an unfermented state, and valuing it 
more highly than the fermented. He calls this “taking the 
citadel.” Whatever honor may be in this achievement, belongs 
not to Dr. N., but to Messrs. Grindrod and Parsons of Eng- 
land, who promulgated both these statements years ago, and 
endeavored to support them by substantially the same quota- 
tions from ancient authors. Their miserable attempts were 
most completely exposed in the Princeton Review, on the re- 
publication of their volumes in this country, and it is certainly 
one of the many strange things connected with this whole 
business, that Dr. N. should be found painfully picking up 
such exploded absurdities, and that Mr. S. should be almost 
at a loss for suitable terms, to express his admiration of the 
feat. 

For example, Mr. Parsons (p. 217, Anti.)tells us, “ The words 
of Aristotle are equally conclusive in his work Meteor, lib. iv. 
cap. 9; speaking of ‘sweet wine,’ he says: ‘It would not 
intoxicate.”’ This author garbles his authority. I will quote 
a little more. “ It is a wine in name , but not in fact , for the 
liquor is not vinous , therefore it does not intoxicate , but ordi- 
nary wine emits a flash.” Mr. P. puts out the light. He 
would not let his reader see this “ flash,” because it too plainly 
reveals the presence of alcohol, and demonstrates that in Aris- 
totle’s opinion, nothing could properly be called wine which 
was not impregnated with this inflammable substance. It is 
much to be regretted, that a gentleman so able and respectable 
as Dr. Nott, should have allowed himself to be imposed on by 
such Jesuitism; more especially, as the mutilation was fully 
exposed in the distinguished periodical just referred to. And 
it is still more extraordinary that Prof. S. should have come 
forth, professing to have re-examined such authorities, and 
should lend his name to such ridiculous perversions. For 
this is merely an example. Pliny and Columella are just as 
unfairly garbled, and absurdly misapplied, as Aristotle. Dr. N. 
quotes the following passage from Pliny, which, as I write for 
the people, I will translate. “ Must having been boiled down to 
the third of the quantity; which, when it is done to the half, 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


23 


we call defrutum .” The Dr. does not translate his quotation, 
perhaps, because as it stands it does not make sense. It only 
tells us that defrutum was must concentrated by boiling to one- 
half. What the .boiling to one-third produced, it saith not. 
No doubt the context would show that Pliny is speaking of sapa, 
as he is treating of must, and its boiled preparations sapa and 
defrutum. He never mentions the word wine. How, then, 
does Dr. N. begin to talk about boiled wines, as soon as he has 
quoted his mutilated and unexplained Latin ? Pliny is not 
writing about boiled wine , but about boiled must. By what 
authority, sir, is the word wine thrust into the place of must, 
and sapa, and defrutum ? Pliny expressly tells us, “Vino cog- 
nata res sapa est,” i. e., “ sapa is a thing related to wine 
of course, then, it is not wine itself ; unless the Dr. will have 
it, because a father is related to his son, he must, therefore, 
be identical with his offspring. It is no apology for Dr. N. 
to say that Mr. Parsons had abused Pliny in the same way, 
years before. We expect much more from an experienced 
president of one of our principal colleges than from a quarter 
educated, or dishonest Englishman, making useless efforts 
after a prize that escaped him. I should be very so*ry to 
bring a charge of intentional deception against a man so vene- 
rable by his years, and great services to the church and the 
world, as Dr. Nott. But, surely, the inadvertency of age has 
here led him into sad mistakes. 

The truth is, sir, Pliny knew the difference between must 
and wine, as well as any chemist amongst us. Speaking of 
a kind of must, he adds, “Id evenit cura quoniam fervere pro- 
hibetur; sic appellant musti in vinurn transitum.” “This is 
secured by preventing fermentation ; so they call the transition 
of must into wine.” Mr. Brande, the distinguished chemist, 
in his scientific dictionary, explains fermentation thus : “ The 
simplest case of fermentation is that of must or the expressed 
juice of the grape, which, when exposed, either in close or 
open vessels, to a temperature of about 70°, soon begins to 
give off carbonic acid, and to become turbid and frothy. After 
a time, a scum collects on the surface, and a sediment is de- 
posited ; the liquor, which had grown warm, gradually cools 


24 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

and clears, loses its sweet taste, and is converted into wine.” 
This cooling will help us in our next quotation. 

Columella, book xii. 27, giving directions about making 
sweet wine, tells us, when the must has cooled or ceased to fer- 
ment, to add an ounce of pounded iris, strain the wine from its 
lees, &c. Now, Mr. Parsons, quoting this passage, found 
the word deferbuit , has cooled or ceased to ferment, very much 
in his way, because it proved that Columella’s sweet wine was 
a fermented liquor. What, then, does he do, sir ? Why, he 
makes the old Roman speak nonsense, by foisting in the phrase 
has settled , instead of “ has ceased to ferment.” The change 
was detected by the Princeton Reviewer. And, now, it is not 
a little curious that Dr. N. quotes this identical passage, and 
actually expunges Mr. Parsons’ settling , and puts “has cooled” 
in its stead ; perfectly unconscious, apparently, that, as a fer- 
mented wine, it is no longer entitled to his patronage. Sir, I 
consider all this very singular and very sad. But Professor 
S. tells us he has subjected all these Greek and Roman writers 
to a fresh revision, and finds Dr. N. entitled to a triumph! He 
thinks Dr. N. has “taken the citadel!” 

What would you say, honored sir, should it turn out that, 
notwithstanding all this ado about must and sapa and defru - 
turn , it should be found that — Mr. Parsons does not know what 
the ancients were doing in making these preparations? And 
yet this is certainly true. He fancies that these things were 
made for drinking; whereas, the truth is, they were made for 
improving and strengthening the weak juice of a succeeding 
vintage, so that they were mainly turned into wine, fermented 
liquor, after all. I say mainly, for the syrups were occasionally 
used as honey. 

At last, we reach the professor’s “ ultimate view of the 
question,” p. 46. He finds what seems to him a great appa- 
rent contradiction in the Scriptures. Wine spoken of some- 
times as a curse, sometimes as a blessing, and asks how r shall 
this apparent contradiction be removed? His answer is, by 
supposing that the Bible speaks of different kinds of wine, the 
one fermented and poisonous, the other unfermented and salu- 
brious. The preceding pages demonstrate that the attempt to 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


25 


prove this supposition is a complete failure. If the Bible can- 
not be vindicated in some other way, it must inevitably be 
overthrown. It is too late to change all the lexicons, and revo- 
lutionize all the languages, ancient and modern, in which the 
Bible is found. Nothing can be more clearly shown than this, 
that if the President of Union College, and the Professor of An- 
dover are right, the whole learned world, ancient and modern, 
have been, and are in the dark. How is it that this difficulty, 
which strikes these authors so formidably, never presented 
itself to the minds of their teachers? In all the myriads of 
volumes which have been written to explain the Sacred Volume, 
not one can be found that has any idea of this difficulty, still 
less of this singular method of removing it. For example (p. 
22), these gentlemen find a woe (Is. v. 11, 12) denounced on 
“ those that rise early in the morning to follow strong drink, and 
continue until night till wine inflame them ; and the harp and 
the viol, the tabret and pipe, and wine are in their feasts, but 
they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the ope- 
ration of his hands. ” Again, (p. 24,) they find wine spoken 
of with admiration and gratitude, as that “ which maketh glad 
the heart of man.” They consider this a most awful difficulty. 
They stand aghast at the seeming contradiction, and can ima- 
gine no way of removing it but by supposing that the wine of 
Isaiah was poisonous and alcoholic, and David’s sweet and 
unfermented. But what absurdity is there in supposing that the 
Psalmist is speaking of wine used with that moderation which 
God designed, and Isaiah of wine abused by the drunken mis- 
creants of Jerusalem? Mark the connection, sir: “They rise 
up early in the morning to follow strong drink,” they make 
drinking their business, and that this work may be thoroughly 
done, their morning pillow has no charms for them. And as if 
the strong drink were not strong enough, nor the solid day suffi- 
cient for their profligacy, they crown the infernal day’s work by 
“ continuing until night till wine inflame them.” If a prophet 
came to such wretches, what could he say to them but de- 
nounce a woe on them — for what 0 ! for drinking poison? No, 
sir, but for turning a good gift of Heaven into a poison of hell 
by their worse than brutal excesses. 

4 


26 A REFLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

Moreover, in corroboration of this, I demand what shall we 
make of the harp and the viol, the tabret and pipe in this pas- 
sage? They stand in close connection with the accursed wine. 
Were they also accursed? You remember the sweet singer of 
Israel delighted in these instruments. He loved them so well 
that he, too, rose up early that he might follow them. “Awake 
psaltery and harp, I myself will awake early.” Now answer! 
Were David’s instruments of a different nature from Isaiah’s? 
or were they only differently employed,, being strung and struck 
to the glad remembrance of God, while the other was perverted 
to countenance regardlessness of “ the work of God,” and con- 
tempt of “ the operation of his hands ?” Why, then, should we 
suppose there was something peculiar about the wine, and not 
about the harp ? They stand in the very same denunciation, 
and the one is not a jot more denounced than the other. The 
prophet makes no distinction : why should we ? 

Mr. S. concludes by mentioning a few texts, which may be 
thought to be inconsistent with his views. Let us glance at 
these. 

Luke v. 37, 39. The Professor allows that this has the 
appearance of deciding that unfermented wine was not the 
usual wine prepared by the Hebrews. And how does he dis- 
prove this ? He shows that new skins or bottles being stronger, 
(he might have added more elastic,) than old, were not so likely 
to burst with the fermentation of the new wine. After men- 
tioning an additional reason, he allows that the fermented wine 
would be more common. This, then, is to allow the force of 
the objection which he set out professing to remove. To tell 
us that, though the practice was common, it was not, therefore, 
proper, is saying nothing to the purpose. All the talk of Grind- 
rod and Parsons, re-echoed by Dr. Nott and Mr. S. about the 
unfermented drink being the most common and most esteemed, 
is given up. 

But much more is implied than this. At pp. 26, 27, Mr. S. 
will have it that Gesenius is mistaken in regarding tirosh (new 
wine) as an intoxicating drink. But is it not plain that Mr. S. 
has here forgotten his former assertion ? It is undeniable that 
Christ here calls a fermenting, and consequently an intoxicating 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


27 


liquor, new wine. If we remember how the Apostles were 
charged by the populace with becoming intoxicated on new 
wine, we shall be more convinced of this. If Mr. S. examine 
the modern Hebrew translation of the Acts, he will find that 
new wine is rendered tirosh. 

The miracle at Cana has twelve lines devoted to it! Sir, 
this is significant. Give pages on pages to bald truisms and 
bad physiology, to misapplied chemistry, and pharmacy not 
understood — and only twelve lines to the miracle at Cana! I 
take this as demonstrating that the Professor’s criticism is here 
at fault. Indeed it is, I will be bold to say, a thing unparal- 
leled in the annals of criticism, that a dissertation of sixty 
pages, 8vo., on Scripture wine, should not contain one defini- 
tion of the word yayin or omos extracted from a Hebrew or 
Greek Lexicon. Mr. S. does not assert that every Lexicon of 
the sacred tongues is wrong on these words. Yet the wdiole 
drift of his pamphlet implies that they are all fundamentally 
mistaken. For example, Liddel and Scott’s Greek Lexicon 
distinctly defines oinos wine, and that there maybe no mistake 
about the meaning of wine, (a very necessary precaution now- 
a-days,) they add the fermented juice of the grape. And they 
do not merely give their word ; they quote their authorities. But 
Liddel and Scott are chiefly translators of the German Passow. 
Of course Passow teaches the same lesson. I believe he is 
Mr. S.’s favorite Greek Lexicographer. How, then, does he, 
without one word of criticism, put Passow in the wrong? He 
asks, “What hinders us from supposing Christ’s wine to have 
been unfermented?” I answer, Greek will not suffer such a 
monstrous supposition. Passow disclaims it ; Schneider con- 
tradicts it ; Hesychius knows nothing of it ; Suidas never 
dreamed of it. All commentators, ancient and modern, repu- 
diate it unanimously. To keep the absurdity in countenance, 
the Professor assures us, “it is clear the ancients regarded the 
unfermented as the best.” It is a grand mistake. But what 
though it were ever so clear, — will it prove that oinos does not 
mean fermented liquor? John declares that his Master made 
oinos. No matter how fond the ancients are supposed to have 
been of unfermented grape juice, they did not get it at Cana ; 


28 


A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 


for we know they drank oinos ; and all Greek is nonsense if 
that was not a fermented drink. Had the word been glenkos , 
then, indeed, there might have been some ground for supposi- 
tion ; but even that would not have settled it, as the case of the 
Apostles at Pentecost demonstrates, (Acts i.) 

Mr. S. supposes the governor of the feast was of his opinion. 
But, like all his peculiar suppositions in this letter, it is a mere 
baseless assertion. What the governor called the good wine 
was that of which men “ have well drunk” methusthosi. 
Now it is very true, as the Professor elsewhere insists, that this 
word does not necessarily mean getting drunk, it may mean 
merely liberal drinking. The real point is, does the word ever 
mean drinking freely of milk, or water, or any unintoxicating 
drink. It is certain it never does . No instance can be pro- 
duced from any author, sacred or profane, in which it signifies 
any thing less than drinking freely of an intoxicating drink, — 
the ordinary meaning being to drink to intoxication. On p. 55, 
we find Mr. S. venturing the following assertion : “ Methu 
means sweet wine, and most naturally, therefore, unfermented 
wine.” However natural this may be deemed by Mr. S., it 
is a certain, undeniable, and really extraordinary mistake. 
How could a man of Professor Stuart’s high character write in 
this way ? I should be very sorry, sir, to accuse so respecta- 
ble a scholar of intentional misrepresentation. The truth is, 
when we become absorbed in one view of a subject, and our 
passions are excited, we grow insensible to the plainest facts 
when they militate against us. Yet I must insist the mistake 
is most extraordinary, for Mr. S. had only a few weeks to ac- 
quire this blind unquestioning partisanship. Now, the plain 
truth is, methu does mean wine, or any intoxicating drink. 
When it means sweet wine, it has hedu (sweet) prefixed to it. 
What wine signifies, Noah Webster, Johnson, Walker, or any 
other English lexicographer, will explain. The fermented juice 
of the grape is the meaning of the word. And if, in a secondary 
meaning, it be applied to gooseberry juice, currant, or any 
other, it is only when such juice has been fermented,; and, 
therefore, the phrases fermented wine , unfermented wine, per- 
petually occurring in Mr. S.’s pages, are really not good Eng- 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


29 


lish, the one being a tautology, and the other a contradiction 
in terms. For my definition of methu , I appeal to any Greek 
dictionary in the world. 

And what we have just been saying, settles the case of the 
Corinthian church. Mr. S. insists that the passage (1 Cor. xi. 
18, &c.) does not prove that the Corinthians got drunk. But 
this does not decide the case. Does not the word, which our 
translator renders “ are drunken,’ ’ imply that an intoxicating 
drink was used? We have just shown that it certainly does. 
And if so, then it settles what was used by that church at the 
Lord’s Supper; for, though the free-drinking of which the 
apostle complains might take place at the love feast that went 
before, it is not denied that the Lord’s Supper that immedi- 
ately followed, drew its supplies from the preceding entertain- 
ment ; just as in the original institution, the passover furnished 
the communion. 

The Professor is very earnest in asserting once more that the 
wine of the passover was an unfermented drink. I will not 
repeat what I formerly said. The leaven forbidden at the 
passover was ferment from grain , not from grapes. The Pro- 
fessor’s chemistry only misleads him here. For, though he 
knows that it is the same acid that is developed in both brew- 
ing and baking, this was a profound mystery before the eigh- 
teenth century, when the illustrious Dr. Black, Professor of 
Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh, revealed the secret, 
by his discovery of carbonic acid, and laid the foundations of 
Pneumatic Chemistry. The ancient Jew had no conception 
that what he saw working in the wine vat was the same sub- 
stance that raised his bread. The law of the passover, how- 
ever, concerned the bread alone, as it was that which the 
haste of their departure did not permit them to wait for the ris- 
ing of. There was no similar reason in the case of the wine, 
as it was ready to their hand. 

One would suppose that, after all these repeated assertions 
about the passover and the communion, Mr. S. would feel 
satisfied to let the matter rest, but whether it is that he has 
misgivings which he cannot shake off about the soundness of his 
opinion, or whatever it may be, we find him anxiously recur- 


30 


A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 


ring to the thing again. He tells us (p. 56), he has studied 
this subject not a little, and has satisfied his own mind respect- 
ing it, but can only state results. I assure you, sir, the Chris- 
tian church will have to see more than results, before it will 
consent to have the wine cup withdrawn from the table of the 
Lord. If, instead of giving the public his views on chemis- 
try, pharmacy, physiology and medicine, on which I should 
think there was no special wish to hear Professor S., he had 
given the steps that led to his results, it would have been more 
to the purpose. Meanwhile a third repetition of his mistake 
about the passover, only enfeebles, superlatively, all that has 
gone before, because the inference seems trebly certain that, if 
Mr. S. had anything better than assertion to give, he would 
surely, at last, bring it out. 

Mr. S. tells us (p. 55), that it is impossible to show that Paul 
meant to prescribe alcoholic wine for Timothy. It can be 
shown just as certainly as Mr. S. can prove that Christ ate after 
his resurrection. Supposing some whimsical person should 
demand the proof of this, how would Mr. S. set about the task 
of showing it? Would he not demonstrate, by an appeal to 
the Greek Lexicon, that the word translated eat , actually meant 
this, and that it was applied to the conduct of Christ. If the 
man demurred at the lexicon, then he would have to be re- 
ferred to the authorities in the original authors. Now, this is 
the course I pursue in the present case. I first appeal to the 
lexicons — to all the lexicons — that oinos means fermented 
drink, and nothing else. Does Mr. S. deny this? Then let him 
show the lexicon that declares that oinos may mean an unfer- 
mented drink, and let him quote the authority which that lexi- 
con alleges in behalf of the meaning. This he has not done, 
nor attempted to do. Meanwhile, I maintain it cannot be done. 

Mr. S. assures us that, if Timothy was affected with dyspep- 
sia, the apostle could hardly have recommended a fermented 
wine, and that fifty years’ practical discipline has convinced 
him of this. I have an -unfeigned respect for such ample ex- 
perience; but, then, if Mr. S. has tried to cure his dyspepsia 
during fifty years by fermented drink, how has he escaped in- 
flammation of the stomach ? You remember, sir, how the Pro- 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


31 


fessor affirms the fatal consequences of the habitual use of even 
small portions of alcohol. (P. 9.) Besides, (p. 58, at top,) we 
find the Professor declaring, “ The main difficulty is, that, with 
some few and very recent exceptions, we have never had any 
practical knowledge of any wines, except fictitious ” During 
nearly the whole course of these fifty years, then, Mr. S. has 
been using fictitious wines. How can he argue from these 
odious, horrible, poisonous mixtures, as he justly brands them, 
to the pure blood of the grape — the generous product of the 
vineyard and the vat ? 

It is one of the extraordinary things about this dissertation 
on Scripture wine, that it contains not one word respecting 
Paul’s injunctions to bishops and deacons in the Epistles to 
Timothy and Titus. Mr. S., indeed, puts these injunctions 
by reference into his black list. (P. 22.) He thus admits that 
the wine spoken of was intoxicating. But he does not utter 
one short sentence on the texts themselves from beginning to 
end. Now, sir, I call this an extraordinary omission. Did 
Mr. S. expect that his readers would forget these ? Surely 
not, for why then put them in the black list? It is allowed, 
then, by Mr. S., that Paul spoke of intoxicating drink, when 
he said to Timothy, “A bishop must not be given to wine.” 
But did not this injunction imply that the bishop might drink 
wine, provided he was not too fond of it? In what Mr. S. 
published on these texts, eighteen years since, he tried to show 
that deacons had more liberty granted to them in the use of 
wine than bishops; implying that the apostle allowed deacons 
to drink wine, while “ he put his hand ” on the bishops. Surely, 
sir, it was an ill-considered criticism, and, I think, the Profes- 
sor acts wisely in not repeating it. But, then, if he do not say 
this , what can he say? It seems nothing. 

Mr. S. treats Eph. v. 18 in the same way with the pas- 
sages just referred to. He puts it in the first list, where the bad 
wine is spoken of. I will quote it. “Be not drunk with wine 
wherein is excess.” Sir, I am not surprised the Professor should 
be shy about writing down these words, — they so plainly im- 
ply, that the evil of drinking wine — intoxicating drink, lies solely 
in “excess.” Criticism can do much, but it cannot make this 


32 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

text speak anything but this; and, therefore, Mr. S. acted 
wisely in letting it alone. Would he not have done still bet- 
ter not to have referred to it at all ? This he did in regard to 
1 Pet. iv. 3, “For the time past of our lives may suffice us to 
have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in 
lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine.” This plainly implies 
there was nothing inconsistent with the Christian profession 
in the moderate use of wine, and that the mischief lay solely 
in excess. Paul and Peter, then, were as one on this, as on 
every other point of faith and morals. They were both taught 
by the same Lord Jesus who commanded his disciples: “Take 
heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged 
with surfeiting and drunkenness.” Luke xxi. 34. 

And now let us hear the Professor’s conclusion of the whole 
matter, p. 60. “In this fearful state of things, (the famine and 
drunkenness of the old country, and the drunkenness of the 
new,) who that loves his God, his country, or his race, would 
indulge in any gratification that may encourage others to tam- 
per with alcohol ! The case is so clear a one that doubt is 
beyond a question. But if any one still hesitates, I refer him 
to an authority which no believer in revelation will venture to 
gainsay. Paul (Rom. xiv. 21) says, ‘It is good neither to eat 
flesh nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stum- 
bleth, (or is offended,) or is made weak.’ ” If, then, all be- 
lievers in Revelation are agreed on this, and if it is so plain 
and unanswerable a ground of total abstinence, why cannot 
Prof. S. be content to let it stand there ? Why must we be 
dragged through the worse than doubtful disputations which 
make up the bulk of this pamphlet? Why must the simple 
believer in all existing translations of God’s word be so cruelly 
shaken? Surely there is something very stumbling in this. If 
the ordinary reader believe Prof. S.’s assertions about so plain 
a text as Num. vi. 3, much more may he begin to doubt his 
English Bible on every point that seems inconsistent with ordi- 
nary apprehension. Unbelief will suggest, “your English Bible 
was wrong on that point — plain as it seems; who shall assure 
you it is right on any thing?” If the Lutheran believe this 
pretended discovery, and set down Luther as mistaken on the 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


33 


meaning of the word for vinegar, may he not feel his grasp 
begin to slacken on the doctrine of a standing or a falling 
church, the justification of a sinner by faith alone? 

Mr. S. assures us, that however the two classes of temper- 
ance men may differ about the ground of action, they are agreed 
about abstaining, and therefore may work together; “ there 
may be an entire and harmonious union in action .” But how 
can two walk together if they are not agreed about the ground 
on which they are to walk. Let us not deceive ourselves by 
hoping for anything so unreasonable. Ministers of Christ, 
who know what their Bibles tell them on this point, will with 
difficulty sit tamely by and hear an untaught person at a total 
abstinence meeting, subvert all sound Scripture principle, and 
attack, by implication, the character of Paul and Peter, and 
their divine Master. Their hearts will burn within them, 
though their lips be closed ; yes, sir, burn all the more hotly 
that their lips are closed. They may not choose, as some do, 
to put themselves directly in the teeth of a rabid fanaticism, 
but they will quietly withdraw from such meetings altogether. 
Sir, this is no speculation. You know whether you can induce 
ministers to engage with the same heart as formerly, in your 
favorite cause. They may not oppose you; they may pass a 
few resolutions occasionally in favor of total abstinence, but 
generally their first love is gone, and no second, sober, hearty 
affection takes its room. Now how is this? Is it not because 
their most solemn convictions have been outraged by the 
senseless, nay, infidel clamor by which their ears have been 
stunned, that it is a crime against God and man to taste in- 
toxicating drink? Does not Prof. S. tell us, (p. 53,) in this 
very letter, that the character of Christ is at stake. And how 
does he vindicate it? By subverting all that the sacred lan- 
guages teach on the subject, and denying the faith of the 
Church of God for more than four thousand years. Sir, this is 
placing the character of the Son of God in worse than doubtful 
circumstances. If Noah and Melchisedeck, if Abraham and 
Isaac, if Peter and Paul, if Clement and Cyprian, if Jerome 
and Augustine, if Luther and Calvin, if Cranmer and Knox, 
have all been wrong; and if President Nott and Professor 
5 


34 A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STUART AND PRESIDENT NOTT 

Stuart, in this fag end of the world, and at their eleventh hour, 
are right , then, it seems , the character of Christ may be vindi- 
cated. Sir, I, for one, will tolerate no such scandalous alter- 
natives. 

It is wonderful, indeed, to see how the acutest minds 
may be misled, when once seized by some popular frenzy. 
Were not these two venerable scholars under some such be- 
wildering influence, it would be impossible for them not to 
perceive, that the direct tendency of all their labors, is the 
destruction of that cause which they have so much at heart. 
They put it to the hazard of a false issue. When the enemies 
of total abstinence see such palpable perversions of Scripture 
and common sense laid as the foundation of the practice, they 
are furnished with the most plausible grounds for persisting in 
their opposition. Nay, even the intelligent friends of the cause 
are perplexed what to do. If they are silent, they are troubled 
lest they should countenance incipient infidelity. If they 
oppose, they find themselves in danger of being run down as 
enemies of temperance. No wonder, if, under such opposite 
impulses, their action is fitful and inefficient. Is this encou- 
raging of the enemies, and disheartening and perplexing the 
best friends of the cause, the way to make it triumph? 

Mr. S. thinks that even if his Scripture argument be not 
tenable, he can still betake himself to the apostolic ground of 
expediency; but the truth is, he is pulling down that ground 
with both his hands. He should remember that such a ground 
depends on circumstances. Now this pamphlet is, itself, a cir- 
cumstance on the other side. So far as it prevails in perverting 
the conscience of professing Christians, and tempting them to 
think it an immorality to drink a glass of wine; to the same 
extent, does it become expedient for the enlightened Christian 
occasionally to use wine, lest his very abstinence should tend 
to confirm his perverted brethren in their dangerous delusion. 
It is only because I have the most undoubting conviction, that 
with reasonable care on the part of the friends of Scriptural 
abstinence, this letter of Mr. S., and all similar efforts, may be 
neutralized — nay, turned into occasions of triumph to the 
Word of God, that I consent to proclaim my determination to 


ON THE WINE-QUESTION. 


35 


abstain. So long as Providence may please to bless my poor 
endeavors for the vindication of his truth, I shall rejoice to 
persist in my present practice. But if, unhappily, the current 
of popular delusion, guided and strengthened by such mistaken 
leaders, should carry all before it, then the servants of Christ, 
though it should sweep away all that they hold dearest on 
earth, are bound not “to give place to it by subjection, even 
for one hour.” 

It would gladden my heart, more than I can express, if in- 
toxicating drink, as a beverage, were abandoned throughout 
the world, on the ground of Christian expediency and apostolic 
edification. For years I labored through good and bad report, 
that the brilliant consummation might be realized, and I was 
only driven into inaction, or compelled to seem to the thought- 
less to oppose, by the solemn conviction that the Bible was in 
danger, and the very foundations of the church assailed. I 
call on you, honored sir, as a prominent member of the Church 
of God, and as President of the New York State Temperance 
Society, to throw your influence into the cause, in the only 
way in which success is possible. Have you forgotten the 
solemn assurance of One who is never mistaken? “Every 
plant which my Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be 
rooted up.” 

I remain, honored and dear sir, 

your obedient servant in Christ, 

JAMES LILLIE. 


LBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 020 700 804 7 


